The MSOs love network DVR. Everything is eventually moving to all VOD except for basically live events, and everything is moving to IP-based distribution. By putting it in the "cloud" the set tops they put in homes can be drastically cheaper than the boxes they put in homes today. Also, the storage requirements are drastically lower (the only need ONE copy of American idol instead of three million copies of it). Plus, they can insert their own ads, get better usage stats, prevent you from FF through ads, and most importantly of all, provide you with access to your recordings on any device (phone, tablet, computer, TV)

Yeah right. Channels aren't going to give up their linear slots. If they prevent FF through ads, the whole idea is dead on arrival. DISH and TiVo already have access to recordings on any device. Not that hard to bake into the DVR hardware that the end-user has.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aaronwt

A very, very large percentage of people already don't watch ESPN. Those are the people that subsidize the cost. I know personally I would love to get rid of all the extraneous ESPN Channels. I only only ever watch the main one and that is only a few times a year during football.

ESPN has just about everything on their channel. It's nearly impossible to avoid ESPN at some point, no matter what sport you're following. NBA, NCAA basketball, and NFL covers just about everyone. It's a smart strategy for ESPN, as so many people have to have ESPN.

Yeah right. Channels aren't going to give up their linear slots. If they prevent FF through ads, the whole idea is dead on arrival. DISH and TiVo already have access to recordings on any device. Not that hard to bake into the DVR hardware that the end-user has.

You keep thinking about it in terms of how the world is today. In 15 years, the industry will be completely different and TiVo as we know it won't exist.

A very, very large percentage of people already don't watch ESPN. Those are the people that subsidize the cost. I know personally I would love to get rid of all the extraneous ESPN Channels. I only only ever watch the main one and that is only a few times a year during football.

The question is what is ESPN attached to. I wouldn't be surprised if Disney insisted on packaging some subset of ESPN, Disney (Disney Jr., Disney XD), ABC Family, Lifetime, A&E, History, Biography, H2, Military, and/or C&I. Folks from four or five constituencies are going to pay $7-$9 for "their" channel, and get the other channels included.

They still need local boxes to be the endpoints, and now on top of that, they have to pay to run a huge farm of servers that before they just paid for once, handed out, and the customer had to pay for electricity and cooling. They could control playback on an MSO-provided DVR if they really wanted to. They control everything on the box.

The bottom line though, is that it's a massive waste of bandwidth. It's like VOD-izing everything from a network perspective, and it requires a huge investment in node-splitting just to support the bandwidth to do it during peak usage hours. Even VOD is a huge waste of bandwidth, although stupid customers seem to like it, since apparently having a TiVo or DVR with Season Passes is too complicated for a lot of people.

It is the first step towards all IP delivery. Today most cable companies deliver between 1.5 and 2 gigabits per second of data (assuming around 100 HD, 150 SD channels and some PPV/VOD) just for A/V, plus some broadband internet. The vast majority of households rarely watch more than one channel at a time (unless they are recording as well, but a cloud DVR eliminates that). If we went to all IP based transport then the only linear video data that needs run across the cable are the channels actually being watched at any moment in time. With a few routers it would be quite easy to reduce the bandwidth consumed by linear video on any given segment to 500 megabits/second. That leaves 1 to 1.5 megabits for cloud DVR playback and VOD - and/or faster broadband. All with existing cable plant (replacing cable is THE most expensive upgrade a system can undertake).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bigg

...Unlikely that it would work very well.

And you base that on what? Our Roku works very well. In an all IP world, your entire cable set top box is nothing more than a Roku type device. That will reduce hardware costs to a fraction of what they are today. More savings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bigg

Yeah right. Channels aren't going to give up their linear slots. If they prevent FF through ads, the whole idea is dead on arrival. DISH and TiVo already have access to recordings on any device. Not that hard to bake into the DVR hardware that the end-user has.

What will most people do if the only way to get the content is to sit through the ads? Simple: they will sit through the ads. We all did that all the time until the DVR was invented. Once you can't skip commercials advertising rates will rise again. More revenue.

So, to recap, despite the need to have servers to run the cloud DVR software and store the recordings, cloud DVRs and IP based transport allows the cable companies to reduce costs (very cheap STBs), increase revenue (higher ad rates) and stretch the existing cable plant to deliver more services (which will open up new revenue streams).

It is the first step towards all IP delivery. Today most cable companies deliver between 1.5 and 2 gigabits per second of data (assuming around 100 HD, 150 SD channels and some PPV/VOD) just for A/V, plus some broadband internet. The vast majority of households rarely watch more than one channel at a time (unless they are recording as well, but a cloud DVR eliminates that). If we went to all IP based transport then the only linear video data that needs run across the cable are the channels actually being watched at any moment in time. With a few routers it would be quite easy to reduce the bandwidth consumed by linear video on any given segment to 500 megabits/second. That leaves 1 to 1.5 megabits for cloud DVR playback and VOD - and/or faster broadband. All with existing cable plant (replacing cable is THE most expensive upgrade a system can undertake).

And you base that on what? Our Roku works very well. In an all IP world, your entire cable set top box is nothing more than a Roku type device. That will reduce hardware costs to a fraction of what they are today. More savings.

What will most people do if the only way to get the content is to sit through the ads? Simple: they will sit through the ads. We all did that all the time until the DVR was invented. Once you can't skip commercials advertising rates will rise again. More revenue.

So, to recap, despite the need to have servers to run the cloud DVR software and store the recordings, cloud DVRs and IP based transport allows the cable companies to reduce costs (very cheap STBs), increase revenue (higher ad rates) and stretch the existing cable plant to deliver more services (which will open up new revenue streams).

Who is being idiotic?

I started time shifting my TV watching in the mid 80's with a VCR. I used the VCR to skip over commercials. It didn't take a DVR to enable commercial skipping. But it did make it easier.

To be fair, you're outlining realities that many folks simply don't want to be true. They don't want the industry to run like an industry. They don't want to have to pay what things are truly worth, but rather want to get everything at very high quality for very low prices. It's human nature to rail against the reality you're putting forward.

Wait, what? In what world would broadcasters stop broadcasting because now someone else can carry their content without paying them? You know that for decades the broadcasters received no carry fees, and were DELIGHTED when cable companies wanted to carry their channels, right?

That has NOT been the case for many years. Many folks, especially after the digital switch, rely on cable to receive their broadcast channels. The cable companies rely on local broadcasters for a percentage of their customers so they negotiate fees with the local provider.

And you base that on what? Our Roku works very well. In an all IP world, your entire cable set top box is nothing more than a Roku type device. That will reduce hardware costs to a fraction of what they are today. More savings.

I agree. I use my Roku everyday and it works perfect. I even use Aereo and it's flawless 100% of the time. How many people can say that about their Comcast boxes?

__________________
A passing grade? Like a C? Why don't I just get pregnant at a bus station!

The expectations on the different devices are quite different, so it isn't an apples to apples comparison. Furthermore, there is no way around it - an IP-only video distribution model will be far more costly - 1000 streams instead of 250 - and you know who's going to pay for that, right? It'll only make sense to do it if customer see the worth in being expected to pay for it.

The expectations on the different devices are quite different, so it isn't an apples to apples comparison. Furthermore, there is no way around it - an IP-only video distribution model will be far more costly - 1000 streams instead of 250 - and you know who's going to pay for that, right? It'll only make sense to do it if customer see the worth in being expected to pay for it.

That would only be true of an all VOD IP model. Linear broadcasting would use multicast (a one to many session protocol) so 250 channels are 250 streams, no more. In addition, the digital content can be more efficiently transmitted over IP, and so would use the same or less bandwidth currently used for the QAM based system today. Even further, every router on the network works like a switched video junction, only passing the multicast traffic for channels actually being consumed downstream. So most "final mile" segments will only have a few dozen channels on the cable, instead of ALWAYS carrying 250.

The savings in hardware are huge. Furthermore, if the cable industry settles on a standard, the IP client could be built into TVs. Use an embedded Web browser and UI built in HTML5 and the cable operator has a zero footprint solution, totally under their control, with nothing beyond a cable modem on the customer premises.

You keep thinking about it in terms of how the world is today. In 15 years, the industry will be completely different and TiVo as we know it won't exist.

In the 15 years since TiVo came out, we have gone from some small percentage of TV viewing being taped with VCRs to 15% being DVR'ed and 85% being watched live, and that's with over 50% adoption of DVRs among pay-TV customers. So maybe in another 15 years, we'll have 20 or 25% of TV usage being DVR'ed. Doesn't sound like doom and gloom for linear TV.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diana Collins

It is the first step towards all IP delivery. Today most cable companies deliver between 1.5 and 2 gigabits per second of data (assuming around 100 HD, 150 SD channels and some PPV/VOD) just for A/V, plus some broadband internet. The vast majority of households rarely watch more than one channel at a time (unless they are recording as well, but a cloud DVR eliminates that). If we went to all IP based transport then the only linear video data that needs run across the cable are the channels actually being watched at any moment in time. With a few routers it would be quite easy to reduce the bandwidth consumed by linear video on any given segment to 500 megabits/second. That leaves 1 to 1.5 megabits for cloud DVR playback and VOD - and/or faster broadband. All with existing cable plant (replacing cable is THE most expensive upgrade a system can undertake).

Well actually, they deliver just over 5gbps on a modern 860mhz plant, with non-video usages being a relatively small percentage of that. Many households watch multiple things at once. We often have 2 or 3 streams going at once, whether they are running through TiVo Premiere or Netflix/HBO Go.

Actually, by far the most expensive upgrade is going to be replacing every single box on the system, including the DTAs. Today's cloud DVR systems run on top of a linear QAM system, meaning that in addition to linear channels, you have to have that much MORE bandwidth for these stupid cloud DVR systems. They just make no sense. What makes sense is what Comcast started to do, and then stopped doing, which is to rebuild all the plants to 860mhz and then run all linear channels. The part that they are missing is the conversion to MPEG-4, which, when combined with an 860mhz plant, would give them incredible capacity.

Quote:

And you base that on what? Our Roku works very well. In an all IP world, your entire cable set top box is nothing more than a Roku type device. That will reduce hardware costs to a fraction of what they are today. More savings.

Not only are they relatively slow and unresponsive compared to a DVR, the cable company doesn't control the whole path, so people's crappy networks could screw everything up. Hence, they really need to be tied to coax so that the cable company controls the whole thing.

Quote:

What will most people do if the only way to get the content is to sit through the ads? Simple: they will sit through the ads. We all did that all the time until the DVR was invented. Once you can't skip commercials advertising rates will rise again. More revenue.

They will either pay more for a local DVR, and the network DVR will be underutilized, or if they can't do that, they will switch to whoever offers a DVR that actually works, like DirecTV. Cable wouldn't risk losing millions of subs because they wouldn't offer a real DVR that actually works.

Quote:

So, to recap, despite the need to have servers to run the cloud DVR software and store the recordings, cloud DVRs and IP based transport allows the cable companies to reduce costs (very cheap STBs), increase revenue (higher ad rates) and stretch the existing cable plant to deliver more services (which will open up new revenue streams).

Who is being idiotic?

The switch to IP would be ungodly expensive. Considering they don't want to spend the relatively small amount of money for plant rebuilds and MPEG-4 conversion, there's NO WAY they are going to spend the money to convert to IP in the foreseeable future.

The cable plants already can deliver more. The companies who are still in the dark ages with analog can kill that bandwidth waste off, and Comcast can move to an all-860mhz system with MPEG-4 HD. There's no need for spending hundreds of millions on IP delivery.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aadam101

Comcast sent me an email about a "Video Bill" the other day. They created a whole video to explain how to read their bill.

LOL. Their bills are totally unintelligible. I've never been able to balance one out with the various credits and charges that they use.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diana Collins

The savings in hardware are huge. Furthermore, if the cable industry settles on a standard, the IP client could be built into TVs. Use an embedded Web browser and UI built in HTML5 and the cable operator has a zero footprint solution, totally under their control, with nothing beyond a cable modem on the customer premises.

You think they would give up the control that boxes give them? HAHAHA. They love having control over the hardware (except for TiVo and MCE users anyways, but customers are customers).

FiOS had planned to go to IP delivery by now. But instead they are adding more and more H.264 channels. The only reason they can't add a lot more is because a large percentage of boxes only handle MPEG2 and not H.264. So it would be very expensive to replace all those boxes.

The expectations on the different devices are quite different, so it isn't an apples to apples comparison. Furthermore, there is no way around it - an IP-only video distribution model will be far more costly - 1000 streams instead of 250 - and you know who's going to pay for that, right? It'll only make sense to do it if customer see the worth in being expected to pay for it.

In the 15 years since TiVo came out, we have gone from some small percentage of TV viewing being taped with VCRs to 15% being DVR'ed and 85% being watched live, and that's with over 50% adoption of DVRs among pay-TV customers. So maybe in another 15 years, we'll have 20 or 25% of TV usage being DVR'ed. Doesn't sound like doom and gloom for linear TV....

Well actually, they deliver just over 5gbps on a modern 860mhz plant, with non-video usages being a relatively small percentage of that. Many households watch multiple things at once. We often have 2 or 3 streams going at once, whether they are running through TiVo Premiere or Netflix/HBO Go.

Actually, by far the most expensive upgrade is going to be replacing every single box on the system, including the DTAs. Today's cloud DVR systems run on top of a linear QAM system, meaning that in addition to linear channels, you have to have that much MORE bandwidth for these stupid cloud DVR systems. They just make no sense. What makes sense is what Comcast started to do, and then stopped doing, which is to rebuild all the plants to 860mhz and then run all linear channels. The part that they are missing is the conversion to MPEG-4, which, when combined with an 860mhz plant, would give them incredible capacity.

Not only are they relatively slow and unresponsive compared to a DVR, the cable company doesn't control the whole path, so people's crappy networks could screw everything up. Hence, they really need to be tied to coax so that the cable company controls the whole thing.

They will either pay more for a local DVR, and the network DVR will be underutilized, or if they can't do that, they will switch to whoever offers a DVR that actually works, like DirecTV. Cable wouldn't risk losing millions of subs because they wouldn't offer a real DVR that actually works.

The switch to IP would be ungodly expensive. Considering they don't want to spend the relatively small amount of money for plant rebuilds and MPEG-4 conversion, there's NO WAY they are going to spend the money to convert to IP in the foreseeable future.

The cable plants already can deliver more. The companies who are still in the dark ages with analog can kill that bandwidth waste off, and Comcast can move to an all-860mhz system with MPEG-4 HD. There's no need for spending hundreds of millions on IP delivery...

...You think they would give up the control that boxes give them? HAHAHA. They love having control over the hardware (except for TiVo and MCE users anyways, but customers are customers).

I think you are so focused on the trees, you are not seeing the forest. Conversion to IP distribution doesn't require MPEG-4 - actually, the more efficient distribution more than makes up for the difference between MPEG-2 and MPEG-4. Conversion to MPEG-4 is a separate issue from IP delivery.

As far as the cost of replacing STBs, the vast majority of the STBs are fully depreciated, so they are already less profitable than they were. A hardware refresh with a box that costs them around $10 or so, but which they can continue to rent to the viewer at the current rates, resets the depreciation clock.

Nothing about IP distribution and/or "no STB" configurations causes a loss of control. Even with the UI coming from the cable company servers in HTML5 and a browser and app built into a TV, the cable company will still be able to control authorization and will still charge an "outlet fee" (just as DirecTV does with RVU enabled TVs).

Just because a company hasn't done "X" does not mean that they will never do "Y" (or "X" for that matter). To say that because cable companies have not yet converted to MPEG-4 means they won't convert to IP distribution is an invalid assumption. The cable companies are no more sure of the future (technologically, financially or regulatorily) than we are. The Cablecard rulings have been set aside, and the FCC is reviewing the options. If and when they issue a new set of rules, I think you'll see action. We are also not yet finished with the shake out in this industry. If Comcast/TWC is approved, you will probably see more mergers (e.g. AT&T/DirecTV). In this climate, I'm not surprised companies are holding off on major investments. They are all trying to stretch their current environments to last until the future is more clear. Eventually, the future will be here...and it won't take decades.

I think you are so focused on the trees, you are not seeing the forest. Conversion to IP distribution doesn't require MPEG-4 - actually, the more efficient distribution more than makes up for the difference between MPEG-2 and MPEG-4. Conversion to MPEG-4 is a separate issue from IP delivery.

If they issue new boxes and build a new architecture (which they aren't any time soon), it will support at least MPEG-4, and probably HEVC by then. Running everything in HEVC would be a huge bandwidth savings, and for a given codec, and the bandwidth of a QAM-based system with SDV and an IP-based system is about the same, unless you move to a newer modulation scheme with DOCSIS 3.1, but that would be a nightmare in and of itself.

Quote:

As far as the cost of replacing STBs, the vast majority of the STBs are fully depreciated, so they are already less profitable than they were. A hardware refresh with a box that costs them around $10 or so, but which they can continue to rent to the viewer at the current rates, resets the depreciation clock.

That makes sense for older boxes, like today's MPEG-2-only boxes to switch to QAM-based MPEG-4, but that doesn't work for the newer MPEG-4 capable boxes.

Quote:

Nothing about IP distribution and/or "no STB" configurations causes a loss of control. Even with the UI coming from the cable company servers in HTML5 and a browser and app built into a TV, the cable company will still be able to control authorization and will still charge an "outlet fee" (just as DirecTV does with RVU enabled TVs).

If they don't own the hardware that decodes the video, they lose control. They lose a lot of control over us because we have TiVos, but that's mandated by federal law.

Quote:

Just because a company hasn't done "X" does not mean that they will never do "Y" (or "X" for that matter). To say that because cable companies have not yet converted to MPEG-4 means they won't convert to IP distribution is an invalid assumption. The cable companies are no more sure of the future (technologically, financially or regulatorily) than we are. The Cablecard rulings have been set aside, and the FCC is reviewing the options. If and when they issue a new set of rules, I think you'll see action. We are also not yet finished with the shake out in this industry. If Comcast/TWC is approved, you will probably see more mergers (e.g. AT&T/DirecTV). In this climate, I'm not surprised companies are holding off on major investments. They are all trying to stretch their current environments to last until the future is more clear. Eventually, the future will be here...and it won't take decades.

My point is that Comcast and the others rarely ever upgrade ANYTHING unless they are dragged kicking and screaming into it. DirecTV finally dragged Comcast into upgrading their HD lineup, which required all-digital (they wanted to get rid of analog anyways, as people could steal it), and some plant upgrades (although they stopped halfway through that project). The benefits of MPEG-4 and rebuilding plants to 860mhz are known, clear, and proven in the field, and yet they are partially done or not done at all. This mythical future IP over coax system would be enormously expensive, and offer no benefit whatsoever to Comcast. MEPG-4 and 860mhz offer huge benefits to their ability to compete with other providers, offer more bandwidth, more channels, more pay packages, etc.

The only thing coming in the next decade is DOCSIS 3.1, and even that is going to be extremely slow, as it's not backwards compatible with the massive install base of DOCSIS 2 and 3 equipment that's out there now. DOCSIS 3 can be scaled up to 24 channels downstream on a single modem, and with limited competition in most areas, and FIOS showing no signs of going past 80mbps with a reasonably priced package, I think the 105/150mbps packages are pretty much the end of the line for speed upgrades. The two proven upgrades that they have available to invest in are MPEG-4 and 860mhz for the systems that aren't 860mhz yet.

The architecture is there, the big innovations in the coming years are going to be software, services, authentication, the boxes, etc. Look at X1, TV anywhere streaming, their new Wifi gateways. All of that stuff runs on the existing QAM infrastructure yet looks and feels new and innovative (and in some ways is) to the end user. And all that new equipment they are rolling out now is DOCSIS 3 and MPEG-2 or 4 over QAM, so that's what they will be using for many years to come.

If they issue new boxes and build a new architecture (which they aren't any time soon), it will support at least MPEG-4, and probably HEVC by then. Running everything in HEVC would be a huge bandwidth savings, and for a given codec, and the bandwidth of a QAM-based system with SDV and an IP-based system is about the same, unless you move to a newer modulation scheme with DOCSIS 3.1, but that would be a nightmare in and of itself...

I give up...I and others point to industry trends, market developments and technology alliances and you respond with opinion with no factual support. Believe what you want.

I give up...I and others point to industry trends, market developments and technology alliances and you respond with opinion with no factual support. Believe what you want.

First of all, any new system will NOT be MPEG-2. We know that. But secondly, no one has given any reason that Comcast would switch to IP over QAM. MPEG-4 is obvious, that's a capacity issue. But no one has provided the reason that Comcast would just go and replace most of the equipment out in the field to support IP distribution, spending hundreds of millions to do so...

First of all, any new system will NOT be MPEG-2. We know that. But secondly, no one has given any reason that Comcast would switch to IP over QAM. MPEG-4 is obvious, that's a capacity issue. But no one has provided the reason that Comcast would just go and replace most of the equipment out in the field to support IP distribution, spending hundreds of millions to do so...

Comcast has! On multiple occasions! That's all that ever comes out of the mouths of CEOs and CTOs of cable companies, that IP distribution is coming and that is is what they are planning to move to.

You have obviously, over the course of this thread and others that you simply do not understand where the industry is going. You seem to be constantly viewing the state of things as if mobile devices don't exist, as if it is the year 2004.

Whether any provider switches to H.264 or Ip delivery it will be a slow process. It just isn't possible to replace all the STBs quickly without incurring a huge cost. SO it would be done over many years. WHy replace a box that is still bringing in revenue if you don't need to?

But secondly, no one has given any reason that Comcast would switch to IP over QAM... But no one has provided the reason that Comcast would just go and replace most of the equipment out in the field to support IP distribution, spending hundreds of millions to do so...

Out of home streaming is via IP. In home to 2nd screen devices is via IP.
3rd party content partners are IP, like HBOgo. Internet customers require IP over the cable plant.

Those things will never change.

Video-QAM works fine, but if you're going to expand your services to more devices, you'll have to keep 2 technologies forever, or you can choose one that can do both. The amount of headend equipment is cut in half. Even better, new services in the future would not require new headend equipment, but are just software services living in some server way way up the city or regional, maybe even national network..

Replacement box costs?
Most TV's sold today can decode mpeg4 and have IP stacks. As well as all the tablets and smart phones. And all the streamer boxes. This is actually reduced box costs almost free, the customer paid for them.

Anyway, I don't think the cost is an interesting question. They look at it as what services can they offer to increase revenue. Advertiser or Customer revenue.

Even the most basic, how is Comcast going to roll out more OnDemand screens? Switched Video-QAM and an IP request channel? Or an all IP channel?

If Comcast doesn't move into these segments, the customer will go to Apple or Amazon and Comcast would lose that revenue.

Whether any provider switches to H.264 or Ip delivery it will be a slow process. It just isn't possible to replace all the STBs quickly without incurring a huge cost. SO it would be done over many years. WHy replace a box that is still bringing in revenue if you don't need to?

Of course it will be a slow process. No one is claiming Comcast is going to replace 60-70 million set top boxes next month. Heck, Charter is even working on a new UI/software system for their boxes that delivers the guide over a QAM instead of IP based.

These things are transitory, though. The new boxes can receive their bits whether they're an MPEG stream directly encoded in QAM or whether they are delivered over a DOCSIS carrier. The point isn't what are they going to do over the next 5 years, it's what are they doing over the next 10-15?

Quote:

Originally Posted by telemark

Out of home streaming is via IP. In home to 2nd screen devices is via IP.
3rd party content partners are IP, like HBOgo. Internet customers require IP over the cable plant.

Those things will never change.

Video-QAM works fine, but if you're going to expand your services to more devices, you'll have to keep 2 technologies forever, or you can choose one that can do both. The amount of headend equipment is cut in half. Even better, new services in the future would not require new headend equipment, but are just software services living in some server way way up the city or regional, maybe even national network..

Replacement box costs?
Most TV's sold today can decode mpeg4 and have IP stacks. As well as all the tablets and smart phones. And all the streamer boxes. This is actually reduced box costs almost free, the customer paid for them.

Anyway, I don't think the cost is an interesting question. They look at it as what services can they offer to increase revenue. Advertiser or Customer revenue.

Even the most basic, how is Comcast going to roll out more OnDemand screens? Switched Video-QAM and an IP request channel? Or an all IP channel?

If Comcast doesn't move into these segments, the customer will go to Apple or Amazon and Comcast would lose that revenue.

There's a whole other topic of ad insertion, I'm not going into.

Bingo. Why keep the QAM linear video system going when you could just put an "app" on every STB and use the same system for TVs that is used for iPads.

Comcast has! On multiple occasions! That's all that ever comes out of the mouths of CEOs and CTOs of cable companies, that IP distribution is coming and that is is what they are planning to move to.

You have obviously, over the course of this thread and others that you simply do not understand where the industry is going. You seem to be constantly viewing the state of things as if mobile devices don't exist, as if it is the year 2004.

Yeah right. Comcast is going to drag their heels for another god knows how many years on MPEG-4 and plant upgrades, and maybe eventually do those. At this point, it almost looks like they're never going to upgrade some of the archaic 650mhz plants like mine, and will instead use MPEG-4 to cram more channels onto a 1980's-era system instead of actually going out there and doing the upgrade that they need to do. At the rate they upgrade, IP is several decades off if they ever do it. They still have to get through MPEG-4, plant rebuilds, node splitting and maybe SDV before they even get to IP, and once they have all of those, they will have all the advantages of IP for a lot less money, so why on earth would they then rip everything out and do IP? It's an illogical argument.

Mobile has jack sh*t to do with how they distribute their cable TV service. They are two completely separate systems that share a wire. The current platform allows streaming video just fine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aaronwt

Whether any provider switches to H.264 or Ip delivery it will be a slow process. It just isn't possible to replace all the STBs quickly without incurring a huge cost. SO it would be done over many years. WHy replace a box that is still bringing in revenue if you don't need to?

MPEG-4 would be relatively quick and easy (for a cable company) like the analog transition was. They would probably tier it, starting with premium channels, and trickling down a few channels at a time through Preferred and Starter so that not everyone who has somehow held on to an ancient HD box would be surprised at the same time when HD channels are disappearing.

System capacity. They could go to 5 or 6 HDs per QAM with MPEG-4, versus the they get now, and improve video quality in the process.

Quote:

Originally Posted by telemark

Out of home streaming is via IP. In home to 2nd screen devices is via IP.
3rd party content partners are IP, like HBOgo. Internet customers require IP over the cable plant.

Those services are totally irrelevant to IP delivery of the cable TV product. They don't share the same streams, and they can't share the same streams. A 6-9mbps MPEG-4 stream delivered over IP can't be used for an iPad or laptop, as it's too high of a bitrate, and it's not adaptive. Secondly, it has no way to get from the cable side of things to the internet modem and through the user's router. The cable side uses IP multicast, and is a closed system, the internet side is an open system that uses IP unicast. Two different, incompatible systems. Look at U-Verse. WatchESPN is completely separate from ESPN the cable channel, WatchESPN is internet traffic, ESPN is cable traffic, and they are treated completely separately, even though they share the wire from the VRAD to the RG.

And if something in the house re-creates a new stream through re-encoding, well you can do that now with QAM.

Quote:

Those things will never change.

Video-QAM works fine, but if you're going to expand your services to more devices, you'll have to keep 2 technologies forever, or you can choose one that can do both. The amount of headend equipment is cut in half. Even better, new services in the future would not require new headend equipment, but are just software services living in some server way way up the city or regional, maybe even national network..

They are two completely separate services. Streaming video uses servers on the internet, not head end equipment at the cable head end.

Quote:

Replacement box costs?
Most TV's sold today can decode mpeg4 and have IP stacks. As well as all the tablets and smart phones. And all the streamer boxes. This is actually reduced box costs almost free, the customer paid for them.

AT&T did briefly do the XBOX 360 experiment with U-Verse, but other than that, none of those could handle a U-Verse stream. They aren't designed for it, and AT&T wouldn't give up control anyways. It's the same for this mythical IP system on Comcast.

Quote:

Anyway, I don't think the cost is an interesting question. They look at it as what services can they offer to increase revenue. Advertiser or Customer revenue.

Even the most basic, how is Comcast going to roll out more OnDemand screens? Switched Video-QAM and an IP request channel? Or an all IP channel?

Plant upgrades, node splits, and MPEG-4. If they are running a jam-packed 1ghz plant, then SDV is the next step. IP is not needed in any of that, as SDV gets you the same advantages, as long as it works reliably. Node splits and SDV of course complement each other, since SDV makes so much more of the capacity re-usable.

Quote:

If Comcast doesn't move into these segments, the customer will go to Apple or Amazon and Comcast would lose that revenue.

There's a whole other topic of ad insertion, I'm not going into.

They are already doing all of this stuff on an archaic MPEG-2 QAM system. They can go to MPEG-4 with QAM, get more capacity in the mean time, and be able to keep most of their existing equipment.